Our contributor, Xavier Fornt, explores the practical and legal distinctions between CONFIRM and MAY ADD in SWIFT Field 49 under UCP 600, clarifying how these codes impact confirmation liability, beneficiary expectations, and bank obligations in documentary credit transactions.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ICC Academy or ICC.
In times of tariff turbulences and general uncertainty, confirmation of documentary credits has become an increasingly valued tool in international trade.
SWIFT plays a vital role in handling documentary credit operations. However, it is important to note that SWIFT does not dictate the rules – it must comply with them.
Read: 25 tips to avoid common documentary credit issues
What is SWIFT?
SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a secure messaging system used by banks and financial institutions to exchange payment instructions for international money transfers. While it facilitates communication between institutions, SWIFT does not hold or transfer funds itself.
Confirmation instructions in SWIFT Field 49
One such rule-compliant element is Field 49 in a SWIFT message, which concerns confirmation instructions. This field provides three possible codes:
- CONFIRM – The receiver is requested to confirm the credit.
- MAY ADD – The receiver may add its confirmation to the credit.
- WITHOUT – The receiver is not requested to confirm the credit.
This article focuses on the first two options – CONFIRM and MAY ADD – and examines their practical implications.
Read: Geopolitics & sanctions: Challenges for UCP 600 and documentary credits
Do CONFIRM and MAY ADD mean the same for the beneficiary?
From the beneficiary’s point of view, there is no functional difference between the two. However, a common misunderstanding arises: the presence of the code CONFIRM does not mean that the credit is already confirmed.
According to sub-article 8 (b) of UCP 600, the obligation of a confirming bank begins only when it adds its confirmation to the credit:
A confirming bank is irrevocably bound to honour or negotiate as of the time it adds its confirmation to the credit.
So, even with the CONFIRM code, the credit is not confirmed until the bank explicitly confirms it.
UCP 600 and ISBP 821 Practitioner
Why two codes for the same outcome?
Why, then, does Swift offer both CONFIRM and MAY ADD if their result is the same for the beneficiary?
The answer lies in the language of the UCP 600. In Article 2, the definition of a Confirming Bank is:
A bank that adds its confirmation to a credit upon the issuing bank’s authorisation or request.
- Authorization refers to the use of the MAY ADD code.
- Request corresponds to the code CONFIRM.
Both indicate that the issuing bank is open to confirmation being added – but not mandating it. The confirming bank still retains the right to decline, as stated in sub-article 8 (d) of the UCP 600:
If a bank authorised or requested by the issuing bank to confirm a credit is not prepared to do so, it must inform the issuing bank without delay and may advise the credit without confirmation.
Read: Evolution of UCP 600 and its impact on documentary credits
The real difference: Legal and financial responsibility
What, then, is the practical difference between CONFIRM and MAY ADD – especially if the bank chooses to add its confirmation in both cases?
The answer is found in sub-article 37 (c) of UCP 600, which states:
A bank instructing another bank to perform services is liable for any commissions, fees, costs or expenses (‘charges’) incurred by the bank in connection with its instructions.
Certified UCP 600 Specialist (CUCP)
Author’s interpretation
In my opinion,
- When the issuing bank uses CONFIRM, it is instructing the other bank to confirm the credit.
- When it uses MAY ADD, it is merely authorizing the other bank to confirm – without issuing a binding instruction.
Practical consequences
If the beneficiary refuses to pay the confirmation fee:
- Under CONFIRM, the confirming bank can rely on sub-article 37 (c) to demand payment of the fee from the issuing bank, since it acted on an instruction.
- Under MAY ADD, there is no instruction – so sub-article 37 (c) does not apply, and the confirming bank may bear the cost or need to negotiate separately.
While both codes may produce the same outcome for the beneficiary, they result in different liabilities for the issuing and confirming banks.
